Toxic Leadership In Special Forces (SF)

The book Black Hearts opened my eyes to how leadership from a single Officer can have a grappling effect on such a wide range of soldiers from the lowest of ranks. One of the best takeaways from Black Hearts is to never do anything: illegal, unethical, or immoral. Although this is a easy statement to repeat, Black Hearts demonstrates the difficulties that lie behind these words. It has also painted a picture of how leadership can topple extremely quickly from a top down view. The Army is portrayed in a bad light throughout the book relentlessly. This is due to the concentration of poor leadership of the 1-502nd Regiment (Referred to as “First Strike”), a battalion of the 101st Airborne Division.

Im sure many people would consider not informing their chain of command of this situation given the circumstances(new to the unit and SFC Sharps reputation) and the fact that SFC Sharp is on his way out of the unit. However the ethical dilemma for me is, do I confront him, alert the chain of command or contact the Military Police to

The critical leadership problem affecting the ABCT climate derives from toxic leadership of the BCT command team. Careful assessment and thorough

Toxic leadership and climate defines the critical leadership problem within 4th ABCT. In conjunction, a lack of care for Soldiers and their families, favoritism, SHARP issues, and hazing have caused a unit to lose all trust in the previous Command Team. To correct these issues I will develop and implement my vision and a way ahead for the BCT using the 7 Step Model. Furthermore, I will place a great deal of emphasis on a specific portions of the Rocket Model, Organizational Culture “Iceberg”, and correcting the Five Dysfunctions of a Team

The principles of Mission Command are build cohesive teams through mutual trust, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders and accept prudent risk. Toxic leaders who micromanage subordinates disregard these principles. Their micromanagement hampers subordinate’s ability to conduct operations defined by mission statements. The move to make Mission Command a doctrinal part of the Army education system should go a long way to minimizing the effects of toxic leadership on operations and

Robert E. Lee once said of leadership, “I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself” (Jones, 1875). This is an instance where I believe that even though this idea or thought was mentioned many years ago, it still has relevance today. I do not have an exact date of that quote, but with General Lee fighting in the Civil War, I would imagine it came somewhere in the mid-1800’s (The book it is found in was published after his death). Our current military leaders need to listen to advice like this quote, get out and know the people they put in charge so they are better able to make decisions on who should and should not actually be leading.

Toxic leadership, likely found in all agencies at some point, and the general awareness of toxic leaders with whom individual officers have worked, makes this a real problem for law enforcement agencies. Knowing the root and cause of this type of leadership helps develop understanding on the part of those that can effect a change in leadership within an agency. Comprehending the methods by which such environments develop and their negative impact on the agency as a whole - via individual officers’ experiences, opens the doors on hidden collusion that destroy morale.

If accountability fails to be kept then it can cause a lot of disorderly conduct amongst the Army and society itself.

Poor leadership, or the more widely known phrase “toxic leadership”, has been a topic of concern throughout the history of the Army. The Army’s recently published leadership doctrine says that, “Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization.” (ADP 6-22, 2012) There are many examples of leaders in recent years that have been relieved due to negative effects on their organizations. Poor leadership is commonly portrayed by telltale characteristics of those in leadership positions, revealed by detrimental effects on subordinates and mission accomplishment, and must be addressed through consistent education and

Toxic leadership and climate defines the critical leadership problem within 4th ABCT. In conjunction, a lack of care for Soldiers and their families, favoritism, SHARP issues, and hazing have caused a unit to lose all trust in the previous Command Team. To combat these issues I will develop and implement my vision and a way ahead for the BCT using the 7 Step Model. Furthermore, I will focus on specific portions of the Rocket Model, Organizational Culture “Iceberg”, and correcting the Five Dysfunctions of a Team to solve the problem.

Substantiated DAIG Investigation - Failure to Foster a Healthy Command Climate; Failure to Treat Subordinates with Diginty, Respect, Fairness, and Consistency: The SM failed to foster a healthy command climate in the unit she commanded and failed to treat subordinates with digity, respect, fairness, and consistency. Statements from the officers and NCO's described the work enviornment under the SM as "toxic," "hostile," and "unpleaseant." Subordinates felt that they could no longer approach her for guidence or feedback for fear of being deemed disrespectful or insubordinate. The SM marginalized her first sergeant which strained their relationship and contributed to the tense environment within the company. The SM publicly admonished leaders

Leadership is critical and it refers to the process of influencing followers towards achieving the groups’ goals. Toxic leadership refers to the leadership offered by leaders who abuse power and leave the group they lead in a poorer condition after they are left. Toxic leadership is associated with incompetence, insularity, evil, intemperance (lack of self control), callousness, rigidity and corruption among other bad leadership characters. The leaders involved in toxic leadership are not concerned about uplifting the people they lead (followers). Instead, they make sure they satisfy their self interests. They fight and control instead of caring for their followers. In most cases, the leaders with this leadership style are leaders who bully, abuse, and discriminate the subordinates. In addition, they create a hostile climate, self serving and arrogant, threaten and even yell at their followers among other fierce characters. They do not lead based on their qualifications. However, they apply force to be in leadership positions thus making the lives of their followers a misery . They are selfish in that they work to promote themselves without regard to the welfare of their followers. In most cases, do this by not minding about the future of their group and its members. This paper explores the effects of toxic leadership in the United States.

In the book this was a constant and consistent factor and an obvious hint as to what to expect further along in the chapters which was a vicious tailspin out of control. Chapter 8 talked about a series of communication break downs. LTC Tom Kunk, the commander of the 1-502nd infantry regiment, set the standard of how the communication was going to exist within the platoons. The book talked about how he would lose his temper at his soldiers regardless how minor the issue. You could leave your weapon unattended or leave trash on the ground either way he would confront you in the most unprofessional way about it. This made his whole leadership style completely ineffective. I personally understand how much this can influence a soldier especially those who are still trying to figure out their leadership styles. If this is the only leadership style you deal with on a regular bases after a while it will start to become the standard for you. LTC Kunk being the commander of the regiment should be demonstrating better discipline and restraint. Instead this makes him appear to have no self control. He should have been setting the standard in a more positive way on communicating with members of the platoons, and creating a more cohesive environment. There were many other leaders in the platoon who made similar mistakes. This example doesn’t just apply to this particular situation but can also result the same in a family. If your mom and dad are constantly bickering and your always

Leadership, according to the Army doctrine, represents individuals’ ability to influence people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization (“Leadership” FM 6-22). However, the varying characteristics of individuals that the Army attracts may instill this doctrine in many different ways, leading to different representations of leadership. Some individuals choose to lead their subordinate in a stern matter, only displaying matured emotions and a “tough-loving” attitude to guide them in the right direction. Others

What strategies can an individual, team or organization employ to counter the effects of toxic leadership?